Global Warming Blog & Ron Paul

[slantedview]

Really? I had thought that the only consensus was that it was occurring and that humans have likely played a role.

Right, to the effect that we've played a some role, I meant to say that we helped cause it.

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Depends on the person, but I know a lot of people have a problem with things such as wanting to get rid of the war on drugs ("you want people to smoke pot?"), legalize prostitution ("what type of values are you trying to promote?"), reduce funding for education ("what, you don't want to educate our kids?"), get rid of the dept. of homeland security ("who will protect us?"), doesn't think the federal government should get involved in global warming as far as regulations and such go, and so forth. Additionally, on things like abortion or gay marriages, some people I know wouldn't like the fact that he wants states to decide; they'd rather have a federal law, but in favor of their opinion, rather than their opponents' opinion. And some people can't imagine that our ecomony might crap out on us any time because of our monetary policies, and think that any significant change is crazy and more likely to cause instability than continuing down our current path.

Drugs: We're not pro-drugs, we're pro-choice. Why do we throw people in prison for exercising personal freedom?

Prostitution: While it isn't a good thing IMO why do we arrest people for prostitution when millions of people are frequenting to bars, clubs etc. in order to "get laid" for free? Who is the government to restrict people from doing what they want to do? We're not promoting prostitution, we're promoting the choice and personal responsibility.

We believe that, ultimately, people should choose their own dentiny, we cannot decide what is "good" and "bad" for people.

Education: Millions of Americans are semi-illiterate http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfRUMmTs0ZA Public education has been a great failure

Security: Our intelligence agency would protect us, I believe in peaceful information gathering. Once we stop occupying other nations, these "terrorists" will no longer have a reason to fight us.

The founding father's WANTED a balance between federal & state power, so we can surely convince them of this.

 

[Exponent]

Drugs: We're not pro-drugs, we're pro-choice. Why do we throw people in prison for exercising personal freedom?

Prostitution: While it isn't a good thing IMO why do we arrest people for prostitution when millions of people are frequenting to bars, clubs etc. in order to "get laid" for free? Who is the government to restrict people from doing what they want to do? We're not promoting prostitution, we're promoting the choice and personal responsibility.

We believe that, ultimately, people should choose their own dentiny, we cannot decide what is "good" and "bad" for people.

Education: Millions of Americans are semi-illiterate http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfRUMmTs0ZA Public education has been a great failure

Security: Our intelligence agency would protect us, I believe in peaceful information gathering. Once we stop occupying other nations, these "terrorists" will no longer have a reason to fight us.

The founding father's WANTED a balance between federal & state power, so we can surely convince them of this.

I agree, no doubt. But I know a lot of people who wouldn't be convinced by these single-line explanations. And I just had a phone-debate with my mom about some of these, and you'd be surprised at how hard it can be to argue the whole federal/state power balance on certain issues. Some people want what is practically a theocracy, though they won't openly admit it (even to themselves).

Anyway, I'm probably leading this thread off topic. Sorry 'bout that guys.

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Yeah, people that want theocracies may be in the fringe themselves, or are we talking about neo-cons here? I never understood the rationale of throwing people in prison when they did nothing to anyone.

States rights: use examples of nations that went under due to being completely centralized, then point out that the founding father's were trying to create a fool-proof society.

 

[Sakimoto]

It IS a hard sell to most Americans because they've been taught to rely on the government...taught that the government is good and helps people...taught that without government, society would collapse and there would be chaos in the streets. I suppose liberty is a scary concept to most people nowadays. They just can't fathom how people can live their own lives without government involvement. Sad.

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Let's stick to which issues are important to them.. "bringing the troops home" ..."oh? well, you know, Ron Paul is the only Republican candidate wanting to end the war ASAP!"

 

[TaoWarrior]

Ron's positions are a hard sale. As he said himself the feds either subsidize it or forbid it.

I looked at one of those voting record sites and it was all over the map on RP since he never votes for a subsidy the count him as being "against" something.

The key is to drill into peoples heads that Ron Paul NEVER votes for a subsidy and look at his votes as financial votes not position votes. I managed to get one neocon republican seriously thinking about RP once I got "Ron Paul NEVER votes for a subsidy" through his thick skull.

Also it helps to be unfailingly polite no matter what, when discusing his positions never rise to the emotional bait Ron is not an emotional candidate he is a truthful and factual candidate and while that is not as easy a sale once you get someone to buy it they will keep it and love it and cherish it forever.

Oh and global warming is happening just the extent that we are causing it and what if anything can be done about it that are in question. Just remember vegetarians who drive an SUV polute less than meat eaters with a prius. Didn't I read RP is a vegan? That should make the enviros happy.

 

[SeanEdwards]

That doesn't sound like a good position to me. I don't want to start a debate, but popular scientific evidence points to humans being the cause.

If it's understood that we pollute and it's understood that global warming exists, it should be understood that one follows from the other.

Correlation does not prove causation.

 

[Sakimoto]

Let's stick to which issues are important to them.. "bringing the troops home" ..."oh? well, you know, Ron Paul is the only Republican candidate wanting to end the war ASAP!"

True, that is the one issue that unites most people, regardless of party.

 

[SeanEdwards]

I recall that RP pointed out on Bill Maher's show that our foreign policy of going to war in order to make sure plenty of oil keeps flowing is ultimately a big contributor to carbon emissions.

He also pointed out that it doesn't make a lot of sense for us to do backflips trying to cut emissions, if China and other countries keep on emitting. All we'd end up doing is hamstringing our economy with no real improvement to global emission rates.

It's a complex problem, but everyone wants an easy soundbite solution.

Personally, I think we should build a bomb the size of the earth, with an America shaped cutout, and set it off.

 

[Gee]

I would say RP is the only candidate who approaches the global warming issue from the proper perspective. Namely that the market should decide what technologies take us forward, and that subsidizing oil consumtion is incredibly stupid. As broke as the USA is becoming, we need to look at solutions that will cost less money, not more. And really the only decent solution to carbon emissions is something which uses the market, and doesn't meddle in it. E.g., a gas tax.

As a libertarian I'd imagine he thinks the state should have the authority to curb polution, but the constitution doesn't allow for that. Thats a tough one, since state governments aren't the ideal place to worry about global problems. Actually, since the federal government can enforce treaties, the constitution does allow for something like a global treaty against carbon emissions to be enforced. It seems like more and more climatologists believe our carbon emissions are causing global warming now days, I wonder why RP hasn't signed on at all.

Though, some things make the future of currently-proposed alternative fuels somewhat bleak:
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2005/12/06/worse-than-fossil-fuel/

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

He probably believes that everyone has a responsibility to not emit harmful chemicals, and, of course, those that do cause harm, will be held responsible for the harm that they do cause.

 

[Gee]

He probably believes that everyone has a responsibility to not emit harmful chemicals, and, of course, those that do cause harm, will be held responsible for the harm that they do cause.

Through property rights, yeah. But the practical enforcement of property rights on global-scale polution is tricky.

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

http://www.lp.org/issues/environment.shtml

read this yet? I'm not 100% certain if it describes Dr Paul's views, but it is the LP views on it, and he is a Libertarian.

 

[Gee]

Yeah, I have. I'm not sure on polution, but I know about 50% of the carbon emitted in the US comes from power plants. I'd imagine most of those are state-owned? RP did say he'd like to see restrictions on nuclear power removed, so thats a big plus for carbon emissions (not to mention common sense...).